Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Rejecting Concepts Based On a Version of Them That You Made Up

Bill Jonke - That's why Atheism is moving right into my mindset. And why do we need bodies anyway if we're only going to be floating around as spirits? I don't get that!

Muhammad Rasheed - So because you don't "get it," Bill, it means it should be done away with?

Is that the mindset you are seriously advocating?

Bill Jonke - I'm the product of a project engineer. Logic is starting (after 60 years, for crying out loud) to sink in. Now Deism makes more sense, but correct me if I'm wrong, which I probably am, but I'm not sure eternal life fits into that picture.

Muhammad Rasheed - I’m not a project engineer, Bill, but objectively speaking it seems obvious to me why we would need bodies first if we are later going to be floating around as spirits. According to the tenets of the religions we:

1. live in our bodies for a finite time period

2. our deeds during that time period are recorded

3. we are judged according to those deeds

4. the ruling of the judgment determines our quality of life in our spirit forms

It seems like these would be fundamental points to contemplate during any serious effort to understand why we would have bodies if we were just going to float around as spirits anyway. I really don’t think the whole system should be thrown away if someone -- who didn’t care to think about it much at all because of their bias against the material -- didn’t “get it.”

Maybe you aren't saying that all religion should be abolished, but that stands out as weird to me based on the general theme of Tony's Timeline.

Bill Jonke - Maybe I should put it another way: In my 60 years, as precise as religion seems to be, we as humans, and all forms of life, as well as inanimate objects, are entropic. I'm not sure that any God could take on all of this, even if he/she or it really tried! I also need a reason why this whole entropic circus was put together in the first place, and to date, there is none, excepting maybe we're the result of a freak chemical reaction. I'm still an Agnostic, not a full blown Atheist, YET.

Muhammad Rasheed - Bill Jonke wrote: "I'm not sure that any God could take on all of this, even if he/she or it really tried!"

You're doing it again. In these past 60 years you've never come across the term "omnipotent" at all? Why would your limited-by-design understanding of the behind-the-scenes aspects of life be relevant at all? That exclamation mark, and what it's supposed to represent, kills me. lol

Bill Jonke wrote: "I also need a reason why this whole entropic circus was put together in the first place, and to date, there is none..."

So when you completely dismiss the source materials which have this info within them, and then turn right around and say stuff like that, it becomes impossible to take those kinds of opinions seriously, Bill.

Bill Jonke - I've been "indoctrinated in the term "omnipotent," but it still sounds like a flimsy excuse for keeping a false set of morals-God is always watching you drivel. When I use the word entropic, I'm expressing the fact that "perfect" does not, and will never, exist, God or no God. Religion tends to bleep over that fact and take responsiiblity away from people, and since every action has an equal and opposite reaction, that's when the prosyletizing, preaching and hypercritical thinking start rearing their ugly heads, therefore, the word "entropy, including conflict and ignorance and sometimes leading to violence on a horrifically broad scale." If you're referring to the Bible as a source of materials, it was written, rewritten, reinterpreted, misinterpreted over and over again and has turned into a big whopping piece of fiction being used for people to hear what they want to hear when they want to hear it, by humans!

Muhammad Rasheed - Bill Jonke wrote: “I've been ‘indoctrinated in the term ‘omnipotent,’ but it still sounds like a flimsy excuse for keeping a false set of morals-God is always watching you drivel.”

“Omnipotent” means all-powerful. “Omniscient” is the one you are describing.

Bill Jonke wrote: “When I use the word entropic, I'm expressing the fact that "perfect" does not, and will never, exist, God or no God.”

Everything you know, or can know, was invented for you within the confines of this universe and its laws. The Perfect Being that created this stuff (built upon the frame work of mathematics that He also created) exists outside of those laws. Without being aware of those kinds of concepts in place, how can you make such definitive pronouncements? Based on what?

Bill Jonke wrote: “Religion tends to bleep over that fact…”

It’s only a “fact” within a very narrow philosophical mindset that actually doesn’t match up at all inside of religious philosophy, Bill.

Bill Jonke wrote: “…and take responsiiblity away from people…”

Here’s another one. I have been gifted with the Free Will to do whatever I want to do in this life, and as a believer, recognize that I absolutely will be judged and held accountable for every deed I decided to do during my mortal lifetime. That is Abrahamic Religion 101 and is literally the exact opposite of “taking responsibility away from me.” The Ultimate Reward or the Ultimate Punishment are mine to choose based on what actions I want to perform in this life, so please explain to me what version of religion you are supposed to be rebelling against here, because it is quite alien to me as a student of Judaism, Christianity, and Al-Islam.

Bill Jonke wrote: “…and since every action has an equal and opposite reaction, that's when the prosyletizing, preaching and hypercritical thinking start rearing their ugly heads, therefore, the word 'entropy, including conflict and ignorance and sometimes leading to violence on a horrifically broad scale.' If you're referring to the Bible as a source of materials, it was written, rewritten, reinterpreted, misinterpreted over and over again and has turned into a big whopping piece of fiction being used for people to hear what they want to hear when they want to hear it, by humans!”

So far in this thread your knowledge of what may or may not be in the bible is suspect and cannot be taken seriously. I suggest you take the time to actually learn what the religions are all about for real, instead of continuing to pass around this weird, inbred version of what atheists believe religion is, seemingly based on some dream the first one had or whatever, and build your personal disbeliever argument around that.

Ann Druyan wrote: "…because he, never having to face the fear of death, creates innumerable creatures who do.”

It actually doesn’t work that way in the Abrahamic organized religions. At all. You’re missing a MAJOR component of those religions that you are either stupidly ignorant of, or you are deliberately ignoring in favor of making this stupid point. The fear of death is an illusion to those who believe, because the earthly mortal life is but a test. We are “spirit beings having a human experience.” The believer in the Eternal Creator is well aware of this concept, that the death of your finite earthly shell is merely a freeing of your true immortal self. As long as the believer does as God instructed in His message, death is by no means a cruelty.

Ann Druyan wrote: "Why should he do that? If he's omniscient he could be kinder and create immortals, secure from the danger of death.”

That’s exactly what He did do. Your true self is immortal and lives on after this mortal shell. In other words, death is an illusion. It isn't lost on me this typical demonstration of the fact that many members of the agnostic/atheist community simply invent out of thin air what they believe the religions are about -- which is quite at odds with actual religious philosophy -- and then build these crazy arguments against this Bizarro version of the faith. It's genuinely weird to me, and I think a potent symptom of a narrow-mind.

Ann Druyan wrote: "He sets about creating a universe in which at least many parts of it and perhaps the universe as a whole, dies... It's a little bit like the rich imposing poverty on the poor and then asking to be loved because of it."

It’s actually nothing like that. A more accurate analogy is it’s a little like the rich bestowing upon the poor all the tools, and an instruction manual, on how to also be rich that the poor are 100% free to use or not use as they so desire.

Tony Steed - My knowledge of major religions is pretty deep, especially since I spent nearly 3 decades being a Baptist, and jumping into Islam for a short time, a couple years. But I also tend to research ALL religions, because as a recent Atheist,(2008), I've come to know that religion is based on disbelief in the other religions about it. All religions are agnostic/atheistic against another religion. Every religion claims to have the truth, but none to date have been able to back up any of their truths with facts.

Muhammad Rasheed - Tony Steed wrote: "Every religion claims to have the truth, but none to date have been able to back up any of their truths with facts."

That's what everybody says when they lack any and all insight and understanding into what religion is about.

Tony Steed - Fact is right now our concept of anything like the soul, which is theorized, and tested so far with an Illegal experiment on head transfers, between a monkey. Is that it resides in the head, and everything that makes us us, is embedded within the neurons. Religious folk can only use their texts and beliefs to say where they came from, and where they intend, or believe they are going. Fact is I don't know where I came from, I don't know what I did before I was born, or where I was "chillin" at. I don't have a clue as to what happens after we die either. But I think that particular problem will be solved in the next couple decades. That will definitely change the way religions are taken. But none of us can say for sure, what's what. Even us Atheists. That still doesn't mean Gods deserve our worship, just because people think we are here to be "tested". I think that's a silly notion myself. tested for what? Recorded for what? Yes my thinking may be limited to fleshly things, but I see no evidence to support the religious theory of testing anywhere in the books, EXCEPT in Vedic teachings, and some mormon stuff, since they basically say when we die will be going to war against evil for God. An evil that God himself/herself created.

Tony Steed - I'm pretty sure I know what religions are about, having been involved with a few of them. Even Now I study Wicca, and Hare Khrishna,

Muhammad Rasheed - Tony Steed wrote: “Fact is right now our concept of anything like the soul, which is theorized, and tested so far with an Illegal experiment on head transfers, between a monkey. Is that it resides in the head, and everything that makes us us, is embedded within the neurons.”

Any scientific experimentation that has come close to touching on what “soul” can be is built from Dr. Rick Strassman’s experiments.

Tony Steed wrote: “Religious folk can only use their texts and beliefs to say where they came from, and where they intend, or believe they are going.”

Yeah?

Tony Steed wrote: “Fact is I don't know where I came from, I don't know what I did before I was born, or where I was "chillin" at. I don't have a clue as to what happens after we die either. But I think that particular problem will be solved in the next couple decades. That will definitely change the way religions are taken.”

How would that be? Remember religions said that the universe was created from one particular point in the distant past, and at first, the atheist scientists doubted it, until the expanding universe evidence proved the universe did come into being from one particular point in the distant past. Notice that it didn’t change the way religions are taken.

Tony Steed wrote: “But none of us can say for sure, what's what.”

*shrug* None of us can say for sure where we came from because scriptures are not definitive regarding that info. We can’t know for sure about what the future holds for us because our actions and decisions yet to come will determine that.

Tony Steed wrote: “Even us Atheists.”

You know that there were/are/will be believing scientists, right? Who told you that atheists have some kind of monopoly on knowledge? That was certainly not demonstrated in this thread.

Tony Steed wrote: “That still doesn't mean Gods deserve our worship, just because people think we are here to be ‘tested.’”

God deserves to be worshiped because He is God. By definition.

Tony Steed wrote: “I think that's a silly notion myself.”

It doesn’t matter.

Tony Steed wrote: “tested for what?”

To prove yourself worthy of paradise, Tony. The Ultimate Reward.

Tony Steed wrote: “Recorded for what?”

For evidence for or against you on the Day of Judgment.

Tony Steed wrote: “Yes my thinking may be limited to fleshly things…”

This will be your undoing. I suggest you repent and change your thinking.

Tony Steed wrote: “…but I see no evidence to support the religious theory of testing anywhere in the books…”

Then you have not studied the books as you claimed.

Tony Steed wrote: “…EXCEPT in Vedic teachings, and some mormon stuff, since they basically say when we die will be going to war against evil for God. An evil that God himself/herself created.”

Evil is an act… one that we perform. It’s not a separate alien force swirling around like in a Disney movie.

Tony Steed wrote: “…having been involved with a few of them. Even Now I study Wicca, and Hare Khrishna,”

Slow down. Try to get a handle on Christianity first before you start confusing yourself with equally poor understandings of more exotic flavors.

“I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times.” ~Bruce Lee

Muhammad Rasheed - Throw down your rod.

Tony Steed - I have. The issue when discussing religion is that eventually it turns into a circular firing squad with everyone looking for position. So we discuss and argue for pretty much nothing. The testing is a silly notion because life in and of itself is a test of you versus the natural world, and your relation to it, and the people around you.

Tony Steed - I remember back when I was a Christian, my friend Cory asked me how did I know If God spoke to me, I could never answer that. I'd say stuff like well I feel that he does, and he says certain things, I also thought when my mom passed away it was my fault for fornicating outside of marriage, and it was a punishment to my family. When My granny died, I was the last to see her, thought it was my fault for not praying hard enough.. I thought it was a test of my faith to believe in Gods plan and will for my folks.

Muhammad Rasheed - Tony Steed wrote: “I have.”

*raised eyebrow*

Tony Steed wrote: “The issue when discussing religion is that eventually it turns into a circular firing squad with everyone looking for position. So we discuss and argue for pretty much nothing.”

You either have an argument or you don’t. Your theories as to whether religious discussions are valuable or not is not an interesting topic.

Tony Steed wrote: “The testing is a silly notion because life in and of itself is a test of you versus the natural world, and your relation to it, and the people around you.”

This world as a test to determine the quality of your afterlife is only a silly notion if you choose not to believe in the afterlife. For those who believe, it is a silly notion not to believe in the test.

Tony Steed wrote: “I remember back when I was a Christian, my friend Cory asked me how did I know If God spoke to me, I could never answer that. I'd say stuff like well I feel that he does, and he says certain things…”

What did the bible say about it? Did you ever try to find the answer in the source texts? The fact that you even shared that means you did not. Why? Did you somehow think that the holy spirit was going to download the info into you? Why would you think that when Christianity says you are to study to show your own self approved? Did you simply make up your own version of Christianity as you went along instead of actually taking the time to learn exactly what your Lord required of you? Don’t bother to answer; these are all rhetorical. All of your religious posts I’ve read have demonstrated that you never stopped behaving in this way, which is why I’m dismissive of your claims of having “studied” these religions. We both know you have not, Tony. This thread of yours, above all others, has revealed that like other atheists, you are also full of much passionate rhetoric, but very little actual study into these concepts you reject. Please recognize that in the End, as you dangle over the Pit, you will have nothing but your own arrogance to blame.

Tony Steed wrote: “I also thought when my mom passed away it was my fault for fornicating outside of marriage and it was a punishment to my family.”

Can you quote the specific biblical verse[s] that led you to think that?

Tony Steed wrote: “When My granny died, I was the last to see her, thought it was my fault for not praying hard enough.. I thought it was a test of my faith to believe in Gods plan and will for my folks.”

Can you show where in Christian doctrine that these beliefs came from? If so, then I will understand why you abandoned your faith for the road of the unrepentant hellbound. If not, it will only confirm my opinions of your version of religious "scholarship." You may consider this a test.

Tony Steed - It doesn't matter What I post, your eyebrows will be raised and my topics dismissed. Your doubt in what I know is already self confirmed, so it makes sense to me, to just leave it at that. Theirs deaths didn't lead me away from religion however if that's what you're thinking. The Bible, led me away from it. But I bid you Good day. I do hope to continue discussions in the future on other things including religion, but this particular one is fini. For me at least. I still enjoy your art.

Nope. It comes from scripture, and outdates Dante far into prehistory. Today it is reflected in modern scripture, like the Qur’an, but the available evidence reveals that the concept came from ancient scriptures of the distant past that have not survived to the present day except in mentions from later copied sources.

Tony Steed wrote: “…the deadly sins are nowhere in the Bible.”

The “seven deadly sins” aren’t actual tenets of the Christian faith anyway, they are just theologian philosophy concepts.

Tony Steed wrote: “No sin is greater than another.”

Sure there are sins greater than other sins. Why wouldn’t there be? There is even one truly grave sin that God refuses to forgive no matter what.

About Me

"I see the world as a multi-layered, encrypted message—encrypted for countless reasons, by numerous sources. I believe our job as actively-engaged humans is to decode these messages for our own use and to document them for the greater body of human literature at the means each individual has at hand. As an artist—specifically, a cartoonist—that is the means/medium I use for my own decoding duties. Through my research, I use logic, reason and intellect to intuitively follow the knowledge thread that intrigues me, connecting the dots from pattern recognition, and producing the cartoons that form my socio-political analysis."